Or are they just Americans who have had enough of taxes and are willing to intellectually honestly look at all alternatives?

This is suppoesed to have some polling data and interviews, so instead of talking heads you know are going to say what before they say it, I want to see / hear how they view themselves.

I admit to having a negative attitude going in because what I know of them is a mixture of bw / FMB "the socialist negro is after my daughters" whackiness mixed with intellectual dishonesty of "I've got mine, FU" , , but I'll give due and invest the time.

The special tonight on the tea partiers from the liberal mecca of TV stations. I am expecting a complete fair and balanced look

That said I respect Matthews, so hopefully he can be objective when he looks at it. Are they going to focus on the whack jobs or the real people? I could do a documentary on the leftist culture and make them look every bit as raving lunatics as the fringe on the right are.

I plan to DVR this and see how it plays out. But judging by the advertisement with them showing people shooting guns I have a feeling I know how it will play out. Just because people believe in the basics of the tea party doesn't mean they are trying to overthrow the government with their militia.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Yeah i'm not a Matthews guy, but this something i'm gonna watch.

I'll be interested to see the reaction of the standard GOP to the rise of the Tea Party. Is it going to fracture the party forever, is one side going to capitulate to the other?

Yep, that as well.

Let's dial down the rhetoric that might come here. I do not think the GOP are Nazi's nor the tea partiers, although one wonders at times about the logical conclusion of unabashed ingrained unapologetic racisim with totalitarian powers. Nor are the Dems commies nor Obama a socialist, the biggest joke going for this center/left politician less socialist than Teddy Kennedy was, who wasn't. But when the Nazi's were coming of age, the conservative Junker class mostly from old blue blood Prussia supported them and nurtured them as an economic counter to the SDP and actual commies. Keep in mind that "Socialist" in NAZI is one of the biggest big lies they cooked up in their stew of big lies. They were radical reactionary conservatives. But the Nazi's were cultivated becasue if their effective populism until they simply spun out of control and the master had to become the servant. You have to wonder is that will happen to the DC GOP establishment that was eging these folks on from the balcony a few months ago. I could easily see an ideologically pure 3rd party that would be a hurricaine compared to the 2000 Ralph Nader Green raindrop.

I do want to see how dead-true liberatarian they are and whether they deserve to be viewed with credibility or if they are just whiney head in the sand nuts. Are they more patriots or secessionists?

Ziner wrote:The special tonight on the tea partiers from the liberal mecca of TV stations. I am expecting a complete fair and balanced look

That said I respect Matthews, so hopefully he can be objective when he looks at it. Are they going to focus on the whack jobs or the real people? I could do a documentary on the leftist culture and make them look every bit as raving lunatics as the fringe on the right are.

I plan to DVR this and see how it plays out. But judging by the advertisement with them showing people shooting guns I have a feeling I know how it will play out. Just because people believe in the basics of the tea party doesn't mean they are trying to overthrow the government with their militia.

Look my man, if this were Keith or Maddow, let alone Fat Ed, I'd dismiss it as red meat counterbalance to Beck and Sean. I get that. Matthews may get on nerves and lean left, but I still consider him an older school taking head, like Buchanan. And I'm sorry, but Morning Joe is the most balanced / nformative show on TV right now. Its a great mix, plus I think Mika is sorta classy-hot.

I have bias to be sure. We all do. But I admit that I have NF idea what the tea party basics are and whether they are lucid. I want to see it from their own mounths and polling data. This is billed as that. We'll see if they play it straight or go yellow.

PS - And yeah, if you want to see me look like John Boner, put me in a room of annoying hard left whack jobs. It'd shock you how "conservative" I'd be.

Last edited by jb on Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ziner wrote:The special tonight on the tea partiers from the liberal mecca of TV stations. I am expecting a complete fair and balanced look

That said I respect Matthews, so hopefully he can be objective when he looks at it. Are they going to focus on the whack jobs or the real people? I could do a documentary on the leftist culture and make them look every bit as raving lunatics as the fringe on the right are.

I plan to DVR this and see how it plays out. But judging by the advertisement with them showing people shooting guns I have a feeling I know how it will play out. Just because people believe in the basics of the tea party doesn't mean they are trying to overthrow the government with their militia.

Look my man, if this were Keith or Maddow, let alone Fat Ed, I'd dismiss it as red meat counterbalance to Beck and Sean. I get that. Matthews may get on nerves and lean left, but I still consider him an older school taking head, like Buchanan. And I'm sorry, but Morning Joe is the most balanced / nformative show on TV right now. Its a great mix, plus I think Mika is sorta classy-hot.

I have bias to be sure. We all do. But I admit that I have NF idea what the tea party basics are and whether they are lucid. I want to see it from their own mounths and polling data. This is billed as that. We'll see if they play it straight or go yellow.

I said I respect Matthews. I like him, I watch his show. I understand he is not KO or Maddow. That also doesnt mean that Matthews is in there editing and controlling this whole documentary. The blip advertisement that shows people shooting guns is pure garbage in my opinion that is in there solely to present them as whacks. That is why I have my doubts about the legitimacy of it, but maybe that is so they draw the lefties they want to watch the show. Lets not forget that is going to be their target audience, they are not trying to get FoxNews cronies to watch this thing. I just feel as if your perspective on one looking at the left from Brett Bair or Shep Smith might be all jaded and calling it FauxNews, but that is just my opinion, feel free to correct it.

The other problem is that people believe there is one basic platform for the tea party, but that doesn't mean that everyone who agree with it agree with everything else. That is the problem with half of the things that go on in DC today. There should not be 2 dinner options for your politics. It should be cafeteria style where you can pick and choose what you want, but the problem is that in main elections you have to pick one or the other. That doesn't mean you believe everything that they stand for, I know you know that btw. One thing that really irks me about the right is that you can not be pro choice and get a national nomination. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of. As if Roe v. Wade is ever being overturned. Lets be honest there are bigger issues in the world than abortion, yet people on both sides vote solely on that issue. I guess that is their right, but sure is a wasted vote IMO.

I also know you have a bias, you have ripped the tea party for a while and try to pretend as if they are all out there with signs saying "keep your hands off my medicare". Not everyone out there at these rallies are that dumb, I just hope this little documentary shows that.

FTR I don't think MSNBC has ever called themselves "Fair and Balanced".

And yeah, Scarborough has a really good show. I like the fact that Pat Buchanan is a regular on the show, his debates with Maddow were always good and cordial.

I know Tim Palwenty was on The Daily Show the other night, but I missed it.

If you look at the Tea Party now I think they lack any semblance of a coherent voice or leader. They can get the bodies out there with sickle and hammer and Hitler signs, but do they really have a message or plan?

jb wrote: But when the Nazi's were coming of age, the conservative Junker class mostly from old blue blood Prussia supported them and nurtured them as an economic counter to the SDP and actual commies. Keep in mind that "Socialist" in NAZI is one of the biggest big lies they cooked up in their stew of big lies. They were radical reactionary conservatives

I too will watch and react to the Matthews special. However I feel the above quote deserves its own thread, because I remember it being students and academic intellectuals that were the first and most ardent supporters of Das Führer. Those two groups also being the most progressive, or the opposite of reactionary, across the globe. Doesn't mean the conservative, or more accurately, the established business interests didn't support the national version of socialism over the international version.

eta: If you want to be John Boehner just get to that tanning bed...

Last edited by Orenthal on Wed Jun 16, 2010 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:FTR I don't think MSNBC has ever called themselves "Fair and Balanced".

And yeah, Scarborough has a really good show. I like the fact that Pat Buchanan is a regular on the show, his debates with Maddow were always good and cordial.

I know Tim Palwenty was on The Daily Show the other night, but I missed it.

If you look at the Tea Party now I think they lack any semblance of a coherent voice or leader. They can get the bodies out there with sickle and hammer and Hitler signs, but do they really have a message or plan?

Nod to Z on netwrok bias. Can't not admit all networks have some. But I will also not admit that the level of all bias is equal. And I commented on Matthews becasue Ithink it is a reflection of the program more than a network for a handful of these old school pre_Murdoch guys that are left. He was Tip's boi, so sure he leans, but I think he's got a semblance of Russert in his POV, s'all. I digress.

But this is also what I want to see, CDT. This bunch may have the spectrum that Z alludes to, I just do not know the composition. But most importantly, insert Lebowski reference here, what positive do they have to present , as opposed to just being nihilists?

Amen the Tea Party lacks a true leadership voice. Palin is not a leader and not a quality canidate. She is and should remain nothing but a pundit getting the people motivated. Ziner nails most of what I believe. Do I agree with the reduction of government spending and lowering of taxes, sure? Does it mean I will rally at the fairgrounds with the Loony Toons, no.

I'm middle of the road on most social issues. I'm of the opinion that I cannot tell a women not to get an abortion, especially if not directly involved, at the same time I don't support it as birf control. Many other social issues cut that way with me, and would get me tarred and fevvered at some Tea Party rallies.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

jb wrote: But when the Nazi's were coming of age, the conservative Junker class mostly from old blue blood Prussia supported them and nurtured them as an economic counter to the SDP and actual commies. Keep in mind that "Socialist" in NAZI is one of the biggest big lies they cooked up in their stew of big lies. They were radical reactionary conservatives

I too will watch and react to the Matthews special. However I feel the above quote deserves its own thread, because I remember it being students and academic intellectuals that were the first and most ardent supporters of Das Führer. Those two groups also being the most progressive, or the opposite of reactionary, across the globe. Doesn't mean the conservative, or more accurately, the established business interests didn't support the national version of socialism over the international version.

eta: If you want to be John Boehner just get to that tanning bed...

No way my good man, no way.

All the intellectual university types were (mistakenly) in love with Marxist theory and looking to build the workers' paradise. Chortle.

Hitler plugged into the existing Brownshirts' network or angry ex-military, jewish conspiracy types. I know that people here lose patience with me for the vociferous nature of my takes like I'm a dickweed know it all. Or I post hammered late night and the wherewolf asshole comes out at the fullmoon. Really, I'm sorry I come across that way at times. But I know what I know and I know what I don't know and much like our good man Proove in his throwdown with eyesore, I got the transcripts to back me up on this one.

NFW were the National Socialists the darlings of German intelligencia. In fact, they viewed him in a way that would make US intelligencia (aka the despised pointy headed liberals) view Palin as a viable respected leader. Anything else is a baseless take. Sorry to send it out that way and come off a dooch. But it is what it is.

jb wrote:Keep in mind that "Socialist" in NAZI is one of the biggest big lies they cooked up in their stew of big lies. They were radical reactionary conservatives.

Not true; or at any rate not entirely true. The "northern" wing of the Nazi Party, the Gregor/Otto Strasser wing from the big Protestant industrial centers like Hamburg and Berlin, took their socialism very seriously. The Strassers were all for busting out the Krupps and I.G. Farbens and starving out the Junker landowners.

One of the conditions of continued support for Hitler among the Junkers, the Army and the old-line Prussians was that Hitler get rid of the socialist/"permanent revolution" wing of the Party. That, along with shattering the power of the SA, was the point of the Night of the Long Knives.

It's true that Hitler had very little use for socialism or any economic theory whatsoever. Hitler wanted power and he was more than willing to cut deals with the conservatives to get it. But Gregor and Otto Strasser were indeed socialists. And Nazism was a youth movement. It was revolutionary, it was anti-establishment- and those elements had a lot of appeal to the youth of Germany at the time.

PS- If we can keep this civil, JB, that would be great.

Last edited by hermanfontenot on Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Social conservatives have been routed in every single battle they've fought over the last forty years. In terms of the culture wars So-Cons are the equivalent of the late '80s Denver Broncos in a Super Bowl.

Even the younger generation of right-wingers is bailing on So-Cons. They have no power except as a boogeyman. They're losers.

jb wrote:All the intellectual university types were (mistakenly) in love with Marxist theory and looking to build the workers' paradise. Chortle.

Hitler plugged into the existing Brownshirts' network or angry ex-military, jewish conspiracy types. I know that people here lose patience with me for the vociferous nature of my takes like I'm a dickweed know it all. Or I post hammered late night and the wherewolf asshole comes out at the fullmoon. Really, I'm sorry I come across that way at times. But I know what I know and I know what I don't know and much like our good man Proove in his throwdown with eyesore, I got the transcripts to back me up on this one.

NFW were the National Socialists the darlings of German intelligencia. In fact, they viewed him in a way that would make US intelligencia (aka the despised pointy headed liberals) view Palin as a viable respected leader. Anything else is a baseless take. Sorry to send it out that way and come off a dooch. But it is what it is.

I by know means know everything, and want to have a go at this, and keep it in the terms Herm stated in his edit.

The first party platform of the NSDAP was communicated by Hitler at the first large party gathering in Munich Febur It is nationalistic first, and socialist in a close second. You state Palin, and I agree the German academics thought Hitler nothing more then a useful idiot. They were far from reactionary though, and hardly mistaken, they were progressive through and through. Where do you think Woodrow Wilson learned his stuff?

Prussian academics had be at these prinicipals for decades before Hitler or the Nazi party.

We really should get a new thread going. Working definitions of socialism, conservatism, progressive, and reactionary should be established. The differences of facism and communism, nationalism and internationalism. Blah, blah, blah. Just like the progressive movement was born in the Republican party, things have a way of moving around and current day definitions don't always capture accurately. Lincoln of the Republican party was hardly a conservative.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

jb wrote:Keep in mind that "Socialist" in NAZI is one of the biggest big lies they cooked up in their stew of big lies. They were radical reactionary conservatives.

Not true; or at any rate not entirely true. The "northern" wing of the Nazi Party, the Gregor/Otto Strasser wing from the big Protestant industrial centers like Hamburg and Berlin, took their socialism very seriously. The Strassers were all for busting out the Krupps and I.G. Farbens and starving out the Junker landowners.

One of the conditions of continued support for Hitler among the Junkers, the Army and the old-line Prussians was that Hitler get rid of the socialist/"permanent revolution" wing of the Party. That, along with shattering the power of the SA, was the point of the Night of the Long Knives.

It's true that Hitler had very little use for socialism or any economic theory whatsoever. Hitler wanted power and he was more than willing to cut deals with the conservatives to get it. But Gregor and Otto Strasser were indeed socialists. And Nazism was a youth movement. It was revolutionary, it was anti-establishment- and those elements had a lot of appeal to the youth of Germany at the time.

PS- If we can keep this civil, JB, that would be great.

I'm good. We are. We're there. I only sweat what I think are unbased takes. this one is certainly based.

I just never took the Strasser wing seriously intellectually. Saw them as sort of manipulated dunderheads, used and abused. They were tools of convenience that got the group off the ground from failed putsch to party. That bias may not disprove your take.

Using a bad anology, I see the strasser folks as the mosh pit and the Army, Junkers, MIC and the rest as the corporate record execs.

Lastly, Germany was a different beast in many ways due to its highly evolved statist structure of professional, trained, and unlike modern America, highly respected bureacrats. "Socialism" didn't have the connotations it does in 2010 USA.

Parenthetically, I would submit to you in rebuttle that the Nazi's were the masters of manipulating and perverting philosophiesthat were not completely out of step at the time. Instructive?

We really should get a new thread going. Working definitions of socialism, conservatism, progressive, and reactionary should be established. The differences of facism and communism, nationalism and internationalism. Blah, blah, blah. Just like the progressive movement was born in the Republican party, things have a way of moving around and current day definitions don't always capture accurately. Lincoln of the Republican party was hardly a conservative.

I more or less agree with that last post JB. Also would love to get that thread going, but I really need to get back into some heavy reading before I spout off, from the hip, as too much bias gets into the mix when digging deep into memory.

I'll throw this down as my last shot, and one that works perfectly with your last post.

"To be a socialist", says Goebbels, "is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole."

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

And CDT- no snark here- if the White Rose was really representative of the rank-and-file of German youth, there never would have been a Third Reich. IIRC the White Rose wasn't political so much as religious/pacifist anyway.

Those weren't 60-year old Prussian landowners smashing in the windows of Jewish department stores. Those were kids.

Like JB said (if I have it right) there were different definitions of "socialist" in that country in that day and age. Bottom line was that National Socialism was dynamic, it was revolutionary and it was anti-establishment. It spoke a language that resonated with the youth of that time.

hermanfontenot wrote:And CDT- no snark here- if the White Rose was really representative of the rank-and-file of German youth, there never would have been a Third Reich. IIRC the White Rose wasn't political so much as religious/pacifist anyway.

Those weren't 60-year old Prussian landowners smashing in the windows of Jewish department stores. Those were kids.

Like JB said (if I have it right) there were different definitions of "socialist" in that country in that day and age. Bottom line was that National Socialism was dynamic, it was revolutionary and it was anti-establishment. It spoke a language that resonated with the youth of that time.

No snark at all, man. I have no disagreement that there where many many German youth who took full part in the rise of Nazism, most where probably the children who grew up post WWI and saw the economy collapse. Seeing your mother have to take a wheelbarrow full of deutschmarks to the store to get a loaf of bread might make anyone anti-establishment.

Damn - post on Heidegger musteriously swallowed. And I gotta roll for a while. In short, I painted with too broad a brush, but I see heidegger as a reactionary philosopher to modern life in many ways, and IIRC he was purged from his faculty after he joined up. But suffice to say I painted with a broad brush and Jesse made some really good points.

I guess I have to cede that I don't determine through my bias what consists of intellectuals and what group doesn't. I mean, isn't D'Sousa and intellectual? But would the right be characterized as the party of the intelligencia US mainstream?

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:No snark at all, man. I have no disagreement that there where many many German youth who took full part in the rise of Nazism, most where probably the children who grew up post WWI and saw the economy collapse. Seeing your mother have to take a wheelbarrow full of deutschmarks to the store to get a loaf of bread might make anyone anti-establishment.

No question. The establishment of Weimar failed- not all their doing or their fault, but they failed. Desperate times make desperate people, and desperate people are down for all kinds of solutions.

Thing about National Socialism was that it was a big top. Anti-semite, wanted the Jews out of the country? They had a place for you. Need work, food on the table? They had a place for you. Old-fashioned nationalist, thought Versailles was BS, thought Danzig was German? They had a place for you. Anti-Communist? They had a place for you. And so on and so forth.

Edit: There where alot of German youth opposed to Nazism, ask Sophie and Hans Scholl. Oh wait.....

bw did....ala Al Whore...and the next time that baitch jb mentions me in the same breath as that REMF I'm gonna go Homey the Clown on his pale cracker ass.

As for the racial element, don't go there jb...don't even think about it...not with me, dude..you gots absolutely nothin' on me when it comes to me and my black brothers in any way shape form or life style cuz thats what you do when you call me bw2

...and plenty of Germans hated Hitler and wanted him dead. Its why he had a body guard of 1,000 men

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus

Edit: There where alot of German youth opposed to Nazism, ask Sophie and Hans Scholl. Oh wait.....

bw did....ala Al Whore...and the next time that baitch jb mentions me in the same breath as that REMF I'm gonna go Homey the Clown on his pale cracker ass.

As for the racial element, don't go there jb...don't even think about it...not with me, dude..you gots absolutely nothin' on me when it comes to me and my black brothers in any way shape form or life style cuz thats what you do when you call me bw2

...and plenty of Germans hated Hitler and wanted him dead. Its why he had a body guard of 1,000 men

Eh, you know I fuck with you, but why just be crazy all the time lately and out there so much? Why not throw in some coherence. Allergic?

I admit to having a negative attitude going in because what I know of them is a mixture of bw / FMB "the socialist negro is after my daughters" whackiness mixed with intellectual dishonesty of "I've got mine, FU" , , but I'll give due and invest the time.

We are raising an "I've got mine, FU..." society so what do you expect? Achievement through ethical hard work is punished, rewards are given to perpetual under achievers and slackers. We preach "long term" to the kids in our schools but we give them only short sighted examples of real life thinking once they enter the real world.

I actually don't blame young kids today that want no part of what we and the generation prior put forth as a society/business world. We solve nothing, it's what we do.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Everyone I know is hard worker and not single one ever says they're being punished for anything, even my diehard Repub buddies would laugh at that (and they're as hardcore as anyone on this site). Sounds like more whining to me.

I admit to having a negative attitude going in because what I know of them is a mixture of bw / FMB "the socialist negro is after my daughters" whackiness mixed with intellectual dishonesty of "I've got mine, FU" , , but I'll give due and invest the time.

We are raising an "I've got mine, FU..." society so what do you expect? Achievement through ethical hard work is punished, rewards are given to perpetual under achievers and slackers. We preach "long term" to the kids in our schools but we give them only short sighted examples of real life thinking once they enter the real world.

I actually don't blame young kids today that want no part of what we and the generation prior put forth as a society/business world. We solve nothing, it's what we do.

I know more about pizza than you. Much more in fact. - Cerebral_DownTime

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Everyone I know is hard worker and not single one ever says they're being punished for anything, even my diehard Repub buddies would laugh at that (and they're as hardcore as anyone on this site). Sounds like more whining to me.

How could Nixon have won? I don't know ANYONE who voted for him?

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Wow. The stuff they just showed from the head of the John Birch Society was pretty erie. How anyone could think Ike was a Commie is beyond me. It's like people chasing shadows.

Orenthal wrote:

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Everyone I know is hard worker and not single one ever says they're being punished for anything, even my diehard Repub buddies would laugh at that (and they're as hardcore as anyone on this site). Sounds like more whining to me.

How could Nixon have won? I don't know ANYONE who voted for him?

Feh.

Obviously people feel that way, I only spoke for people I know and talk to on a daily basis.

Personally I feel that if someone thinks they're being punished for hard work, it's someone unhappy with their lot in life and they need someone to blame.

I saw the last 15 minutes, and if it was a sample of the rest I don't really need to see anymore. It was basically extrapolated hyperbole. Start with something like less government, slowly lead the viewer to militia shooting guns and talking how people are just now talking about things they talk about in their group meetings.

It was as much, if not more, of a sham the the Glenn Beck documentaries.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Everyone I know is hard worker and not single one ever says they're being punished for anything, even my diehard Repub buddies would laugh at that (and they're as hardcore as anyone on this site). Sounds like more whining to me.

Explain what you mean by more whining?

Explain how our welfare state is not perpetually rewarding a segment of society for a lack of hard work or even nominal effort?

Explain why a guy with a very high credit score, spotless record in paying his mortgage, with a respectable income cannot get the benefits of the recent home buyer tax credits and mortgage redoes that were going around, yet somebody with a low income and poor credit who had no business getting the loan in the first place can get those breaks, at the expense of those who cannot but in the least deserve to just as much?

That is backwards.

It leads to the attitude of hey I'll just worry about getting mine.

There are too many safety nets in this country, and many of them are placed under the wrong people/entities.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Orenthal wrote:I saw the last 15 minutes, and if it was a sample of the rest I don't really need to see anymore. It was basically extrapolated hyperbole. Start with something like less government, slowly lead the viewer to militia shooting guns and talking how people are just now talking about things they talk about in their group meetings.

It was as much, if not more, of a sham the the Glenn Beck documentaries.

OJ, did you really think they weren't gonna show the militias?

My biggest gripe was at the end Matthews brought up the OKC bombing and alluded to a conection to the Tea Party. Which was unfair to say the least. I don't think TPers are terrorist, sure there might be a few nuts in the batter, but the vast majority are just normal people.

Orenthal wrote:I saw the last 15 minutes, and if it was a sample of the rest I don't really need to see anymore. It was basically extrapolated hyperbole. Start with something like less government, slowly lead the viewer to militia shooting guns and talking how people are just now talking about things they talk about in their group meetings.

It was as much, if not more, of a sham the the Glenn Beck documentaries.

OJ, did you really think they weren't gonna show the militias?

My biggest gripe was at the end Matthews brought up the OKC bombing and alluded to a conection to the Tea Party. Which was unfair to say the least. I don't think TPers are terrorist, sure there might be a few nuts in the batter, but the vast majority are just normal people.

No i figured that would be brought up, only saw 15 minutes, but I think I outlined what the shows formula was. Also loved the part where they went in steps and ended at Father Coughlin. The fact they called the Tea Party Protesters the entire time. I believe some of that shit, but I don't protest.

Also the show the grand history of American demonstration, then end with how it has never been this bad, how calling the president's agenda unAmerican is unacceptable. How Limbaugh calls the regime a regime and how turrible that is... Again it was as bad our worse then a Beck documentary. A complete waste of time, and by no means anything clean and pure as JB would have hoped.

All this in just 13 minutes really.

I feel the same way about Beck's stuff, and for full disclosure am right leaning.

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Since the text box likes to act all funny once into the scroll down...

If one thinks these Tea Party protests have anything on the late 60's early 70's in terms of violence and hyperbole your on crack. I don't even think the TP movement has the hate of the recent anti-war movement.

YMMV

"When a man with money meets a man with experience, the man with experience leaves with money and the man with money leaves with experience."

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:Everyone I know is hard worker and not single one ever says they're being punished for anything, even my diehard Repub buddies would laugh at that (and they're as hardcore as anyone on this site). Sounds like more whining to me.

Explain what you mean by more whining?

Explain how our welfare state is not perpetually rewarding a segment of society for a lack of hard work or even nominal effort?

Explain why a guy with a very high credit score, spotless record in paying his mortgage, with a respectable income cannot get the benefits of the recent home buyer tax credits and mortgage redoes that were going around, yet somebody with a low income and poor credit who had no business getting the loan in the first place can get those breaks, at the expense of those who cannot but in the least deserve to just as much?

That is backwards.

It leads to the attitude of hey I'll just worry about getting mine.

There are too many safety nets in this country, and many of them are placed under the wrong people/entities.

I shouldn't have said "whining". So that was my bad.

You worry about getting yours. That's fine with me.

I don't see a "Welfare State". Are there lazy fucks out there that ain't worth shit? Sure, and I wouldn't have a problem with cutting them off, but there's also some good people out there that need help and I don't see a problem with helping them.

Saying we're a Welfare State is wrong IMO, the vast majority of people in this country are hard workers just trying to make their bones.

Why can't that guy get those benefits? I would ask the NAHB, my guess would be to get more new home owners to jump start the housing industry. From what I understand (which is limited) As long as you don't make more than $80,000 a year you were eligible, you just had to sign the contract before the end of last April.

Actually you are incorrect, while I do make sure I get mine (through means of earning what I have) I simply just do not want to be held fiscally responsible for the failings and out right refusal of others to earn theirs.

I don't see a "Welfare State". Are there lazy fucks out there that ain't worth shit? Sure, and I wouldn't have a problem with cutting them off, but there's also some good people out there that need help and I don't see a problem with helping them.

Well CDT you are either ignorant, naive or being obtuse (the 2 former being forgivable). It's not helping good people that is the problem is it unjustifiably being blind to the number of people that are lifers and 52ers & 99ers in living off of the system that is the problem. We don't administer tough love and allow people to fail due to their own decisions. I'd bet you're assuming my feeling is that this just started under Obama, again incorrect, however he is doing little to change the culture.

Saying we're a Welfare State is wrong IMO, the vast majority of people in this country are hard workers just trying to make their bones.

Of course the majority are hard workers, the country wouldn't exist otherwise, the number of those dipping into the system due to lack of perseverance and a strong back is growing though, quickly. But it isn't so much that I have a problem with as it is how we make it easier for them to do so, we create incentives to do so. Through policy, rules & regulations we virtually encourage the easy way out approach.

Why can't that guy get those benefits? I would ask the NAHB, my guess would be to get more new home owners to jump start the housing industry. From what I understand (which is limited) As long as you don't make more than $80,000 a year you were eligible, you just had to sign the contract before the end of last April.

I won't pretend to be the expert either, as there are many variables in all this, but I do know that there were first time HBTC's and HBTCs for those owning for a certain minimum number of years, leaving those in the middle completely out of luck, yet those people were just as vulnerable and hit just as hard as everyone else in the past 18 months. I've actually heard a local banker tell a friend that his best option to getting out of his current mortgage was to let the property go into foreclosure, he said this off the record of course.

Sounds almost like some strange financial discrimination going on when you consider certain entities/people get bailed out and other do not. There is another term for it.

It all has the odor of intellectual dishonesty, unless of course you can point me to where we preach this in our education system. We have become a short sighted nation and are simply bad decision makers.

Criminals in this town used to believe in things...honor, respect."I heard your dog is sick, so bought you this shovel"

Well CDT you are either ignorant, naive or being obtuse (the 2 former being forgivable). It's not helping good people that is the problem is it unjustifiably being blind to the number of people that are lifers and 52ers & 99ers in living off of the system that is the problem. We don't administer tough love and allow people to fail due to their own decisions. I'd bet you're assuming my feeling is that this just started under Obama, again incorrect, however he is doing little to change the culture.

I'm so sorry for not viewing this country in the same negative light as you, to go as far as to call it a "Welfare State" really I am. It must be my naivety, ignorance, or whatever brush you want to try to paint me with.

I'm not sure if you read it (I highly doubt it), but I said I have no problem cutting people off who abuse the system.

And I didn't assume anything, you assumed I assumed something so........

No i figured that would be brought up, only saw 15 minutes, but I think I outlined what the shows formula was. Also loved the part where they went in steps and ended at Father Coughlin. The fact they called the Tea Party Protesters the entire time. I believe some of that shit, but I don't protest.

Also the show the grand history of American demonstration, then end with how it has never been this bad, how calling the president's agenda unAmerican is unacceptable. How Limbaugh calls the regime a regime and how turrible that is... Again it was as bad our worse then a Beck documentary. A complete waste of time, and by no means anything clean and pure as JB would have hoped.

All this in just 13 minutes really.

So, I missed by 8 minutes when I gave him 5.

I'll have to work on that.

Seriously, I am totally IT's BUSH'S FAULT fucking dumbfounded on how anyone with a lick of sense IT'S BUSH'S FAULT could have expected otherwise from such a hyperbolic, trash talking IT'S BUSH'S FAULT asshole

...and jb, you DIMSCUM!, in spite of his IT'S BUSH'S FAULT! minimal experiences with Sir Charles, COMMUNIST SCUM! when DIMSCUM! you mention me in IT'S BUSH'S FAULT! the same breath as bw, you DIMSCUM! get wrath in return, dude. I've got more in common with your DIMSCUM! PC ass than that whacko.

I don't watch any IT'S BUSH's FAULT! talking heads, much less count on them IT'S BUSH'S FAULT to be anything less than obnoxious pigs on power trips

BTW, it's all Bush's fault if you haven't heard

..and love her or hate her, I'm ambivalent, this right here is one of the best politcal comeback lines ever that will be etched in gold in 5 months

v v v v v v v v v v v v v

Hope is a moment now long pastThe Shadow of Death is the one I castKoo koo ka joob....I am the Walrus